Press "Enter" to skip to content

Jeff Barth Pumped for 2012… and Keystone XL

Jeff, Jeff, Jeff....

[U.S. House candidate Jeff Barth] said he supports a pipeline coming through South Dakota, especially now that is has been relocated away from environmentally sensitive areas.

"I do believe it will create jobs," Barth said. "And goodpaying jobs" [Tom Lawrence, "US House Candidate Says He's Pumped up for 2012," Mitchell Daily Republic, 2011.11.16].

Jeff, you are clearly not paying attention. TransCanada's VP Robert Jones himself has said most of the jobs in their "20,000" claim are temporary and that permanent jobs are in the hundreds, not thousands. A damning Cornell University analysis finds even those temporary construction jobs may number between just 500 to 1400, and that Keystone XL may cause long-term job losses by raising our oil prices.

And consider: we already have one TransCanada pipeline running through East River. How many jobs has it created?

Keystone XL is bad for South Dakota and bad for America. It makes oil guys richer and us poorer. Barth doesn't have to speak in favor of Keystone XL to beat Noem, who is clueless on the pipeline. And if Barth faces a primary, he definitely won't win against a Dem challenger who understands that Keystone XL is a project for the 1%.

Related: The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration finds hundreds of stream crossings in Wyoming and Montana threatened by deteriorating oil and gas pipelines.

12 Comments

  1. Lee Schoenbeck 2011.11.17

    Cory old buddy - how many dollars are you proposing to take away from our schools in the property tax payments from pipeline with your opposition to this one? I'm not saying you shouldn't be concerned that they are doing it in a manner that protects the environment -- they should, and then some. But, just curious how you feel about attacking funding for our schools?

  2. Colter Heirigs 2011.11.17

    Lee,

    Less than the $127 million Governor Daugaard willingly took away from schools this year... I'm guessing, but I would bet that it is more than likely less than the $30M rebate that Rounds & Daugaard GAVE to TransCanada to build the pipeline.

    Sincerely,
    Colter

  3. Lee Schoenbeck 2011.11.17

    $9 million a year in property taxes. Under the current system that displaces state aid, but certainly makes more money therefore available for medicaid, state aid, and state employee compensation -- plus makes taxes on land owners lower, making opt outs more palatable. That's the cheaper current pipeline - the new one would be much more. Lot of folks - those that do math - would say there's a problem oppposing tax revenue and jobs,a nd then complaining about the lack of jobs and not enough tax revenues --- I'm just say, the state of reality is a hard one to ignore

  4. Charlie Johnson 2011.11.17

    When Trans Canada is ready to perfect a performance bond then we will be able to put belief behind their safety claims. When they pay a severance fee payable to the general treasury of SD, we will then be able to put real dollars behind rhetoric. If this is such a great pipeline let's route it through Watertown, Lake Kampesaka, and on the way south make a pit stop next door to the new Event Center in Sioux Falls. Support for pipelines is easy to proclaim when it doesn't run through your back yard.

  5. caheidelberger Post author | 2011.11.18

    Lee, I'm not advocating taking any money away from schools. That money doesn't exist yet. Yes, I am opposing a project that could be a source of additional revenue, but that's a different position. I feel perfectly comfortable and consistent in saying, "Pierre should provide more funding for education," but simultaneously opposing seeking more funding from dangerous, unsustainable sources. The fact that a project would provide funding for education does not oblige me to support it.

  6. Troy Jones 2011.11.18

    Cory,

    How will this project make us poorer? Let's see, we get paid for some easements and collect tax revenue for decades.

  7. Douglas Wiken 2011.11.18

    The pumping stations will use electricity. I am wondering what they will do to the peak rate charges that get tacked on every winter by REA systems.

    The revenue will decline every year. It may be a 30 year depreciation, but not sure. It will have zero value for taxation if something causes the tar sands oil to be unavailable.

    Here in Tripp County if it pollutes our water, we will all have poorer quality water...which now is one of the few really good things here.

  8. caheidelberger Post author | 2011.11.18

    Make us poorer? We pay higher gas prices. As Doug says, the pumping stations push us closer to peak rates and push our utilities to build more generation capacity, which we will pay more for. That energy use makes it harder to ensure that we have the spare capacity for other industrial expansion.

    And one big spill wipes out years of revenue gains.

  9. Bruce Whalen 2011.11.18

    Jeff will likely lose Indian Country voters. Especially tribal voters located within the Great Sioux Reservation.

    I don't like that the federal government couldn't prosecute John Graham for murdering Aquash on the Pine Ridge Indian Agency. What more will the federal government do with a Canadian oil spill. Nothing! And the state has no jurisdiction. It's a sovereignty thing.

  10. Lee Schoenbeck 2011.11.19

    those pumping station impacts on peak rates are gross speculation - suprised somebody would claim and more suprised somebody would quote it --- what is the kilowatt usage, and when that you claim impacts peak usage and what is the source of your information (Cory - a good debator would ask those questions in the face of wild speculation)

  11. caheidelberger Post author | 2011.11.19

    Hang on, Lee: in general, doesn't it make sense to say that if these pipelines use a whole lot of electricity (and selling TransCanada a lot of electricity is exactly what got my friends at Heartland and East River all excited about this pipeline), they will push us that much closer to maxing out generating capacity and cause us to experience more peak days?

  12. Charlie Johnson 2011.11.19

    When will the pipeline obtain a performance bond? What surety company would underwrite such a policy at any preminum? Why should the citizens of this state/region take on this risk when any or all viable insurance companies will not- even when compensated with preminums?

Comments are closed.